The First Feebles

[Morley]

You are flipping the term back on me to suggest that calling out unbelief or sin is itself a form of religious racism. I think that is a category error. Calling something "sin" or "unbelief" isn't the same as denying someone's humanity or worth because of the framework of their religious convictions.

This is ridiculous. No one who is disagreeing with you is denying your humanity or worth.

Religious racism is mocking someone or stereotyping them because of their religious identity.

No one mocks you because you're a Mormon. People mock you for your specific, inane explanations and defenses of your brand of Mormonism.

Making a theological judgement, which is what believers might do, is not the same as a personal dismissal.

I agree that, in the abstract, they may or not be. Your theological judgements often are personal dismissals.

What I’m calling “religious racism” isn’t about institutional doctrines from the 19th century, it’s about the way some critics today treat members of the LDS church as intellectually or morally inferior because of their beliefs. Much of the persecution from the very beginning had to do with religious/theological beliefs.

You're being disingenuous, here. As you know, you don't have to go back to the 19th Century for this. These were institutional, codified beliefs that weren't disavowed until less than 50 years ago. Even now, they still hang on in The Pearl of Great Price and other scripture.

Those beliefs were and ARE morally and intellectually inferior. They need to be called out as such. Don't you agree?

I’m not defending every historical teaching in regards to those things that we may not have all the information for, I’m pointing out a present day pattern. If someone says, “You believe that? You must be deluded,” that’s not theological disagreement, that's religious racism.

No, it's not. That's moral and intellectual honesty. By your metric, nobody would have the right to call out practices like female circumcision--all because some factions of Islam have required it. Calling out a practice like female circumcision is not religious bigotry (or as you say, 'religious racism').

You are doubling down on the very behavior I'm critiquing. It is not fair to state that mocking or dismissing religious belief is justified. Rejecting faith as a valid epistemology is showing a lack of respect for those that live a life of faith/belief. It's also a bit arrogant. Condescending treatment of believers will not strengthen your cause/case.

Ha! By definition, faith is "belief without evidence" (or belief despite the evidence)--hence the very idea of faith is non-epistemic. Faith is wholly subjective and cannot be proven or demonstrated.

I'll agree that faith can be valuable as moral guide, a cultural touchstone, or as a source of personal psychological comfort. I'll respect your profession of faith to support any of those things.

However, faith is not a valid epistemology. When you offer your testimony as proof that Jaredites lived in the ancient Americas, I have a perfect right (and obligation) to laugh my ass off.

You might consider that there are many domains of human meaning such as ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics that operate without empirical truth.

Good. Here you seem to acknowledge that--like ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics--faith is not epistemological.

For those that belong to faith traditions, including those of us that belong to the LDS church, faith-based reasoning can be internally coherent, compelling, and transformative. Many lives have been changed dramatically by accepting and living according to the dictates of faith-based systems.

Including those that are Latter-day Saints.

Sure. They can still be critiqued. In fact, they still should be critiqued. Otherwise, we end up with the Curse of Cain, female circumcision, and an angel with a flaming sword.

[MG 2.0]

You are flipping the term back on me to suggest that calling out unbelief or sin is itself a form of religious racism. I think that is a category error. Calling something "sin" or "unbelief" isn't the same as denying someone's humanity or worth because of the framework of their religious convictions.

This is ridiculous. No one who is disagreeing with you is denying your humanity or worth.

Religious racism is mocking someone or stereotyping them because of their religious identity.

No one mocks you because you're a Mormon. People mock you for your specific, inane explanations and defenses of your brand of Mormonism.

Making a theological judgement, which is what believers might do, is not the same as a personal dismissal.

I agree that, in the abstract, they may or not be. Your theological judgements often are personal dismissals.

What I’m calling “religious racism” isn’t about institutional doctrines from the 19th century, it’s about the way some critics today treat members of the LDS church as intellectually or morally inferior because of their beliefs. Much of the persecution from the very beginning had to do with religious/theological beliefs.

You're being disingenuous, here. As you know, you don't have to go back to the 19th Century for this. These were institutional, codified beliefs that weren't disavowed until less than 50 years ago. Even now, they still hang on in The Pearl of Great Price and other scripture.

Those beliefs were and ARE morally and intellectually inferior. They need to be called out as such. Don't you agree?

I’m not defending every historical teaching in regards to those things that we may not have all the information for, I’m pointing out a present day pattern. If someone says, “You believe that? You must be deluded,” that’s not theological disagreement, that's religious racism.

No, it's not. That's moral and intellectual honesty. By your metric, nobody would have the right to call out practices like female circumcision--all because some factions of Islam have required it. Calling out a practice like female circumcision is not religious bigotry (or as you say, 'religious racism').

You are doubling down on the very behavior I'm critiquing. It is not fair to state that mocking or dismissing religious belief is justified. Rejecting faith as a valid epistemology is showing a lack of respect for those that live a life of faith/belief. It's also a bit arrogant. Condescending treatment of believers will not strengthen your cause/case.

Ha! By definition, faith is "belief without evidence" (or belief despite the evidence)--hence the very idea of faith is non-epistemic. Faith is wholly subjective and cannot be proven or demonstrated.

I'll agree that faith can be valuable as moral guide, a cultural touchstone, or as a source of personal psychological comfort. I'll respect your profession of faith to support any of those things.

However, faith is not a valid epistemology. When you offer your testimony as proof that Jaredites lived in the ancient Americas, I have a perfect right (and obligation) to laugh my ass off.

You might consider that there are many domains of human meaning such as ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics that operate without empirical truth.

Good. Here you seem to acknowledge that--like ethics, aesthetics, and metaphysics--faith is not epistemological.

For those that belong to faith traditions, including those of us that belong to the LDS church, faith-based reasoning can be internally coherent, compelling, and transformative. Many lives have been changed dramatically by accepting and living according to the dictates of faith-based systems.

Including those that are Latter-day Saints.

Sure. They can still be critiqued. In fact, they still should be critiqued. Otherwise, we end up with the Curse of Cain, female circumcision, and an angel with a flaming sword.

Morley, I would agree with you that faith, when used to justify historical claims, does invite scrutiny. The LDS Church should not be immune from that scrutiny. My concern, more or less, isn't with theological disagreement or criticisms of things that you or others might not agree with, but with the tone and framing that sometimes treats believers as somehow intellectually defective in some respect. To me, that seems to come across loud and clear. And that's not critique, it's condescension. This board, in my opinion, often drips with it.

For many, including myself, faith in the Restoration isn’t about having to prove the Jaredites lived in ancient America. It’s about living a life shaped by values, rituals, and relationships that make sense within a particular worldview. As I've said before, I'm looking at the bigger picture, the 'macro', rather than focusing on individual 'micro' elements that are either inexplicable/unknown in the here and now...possibly because of a lack of information.

Faith has to enter into the picture somewhere. Where is the faith without the tension? Of course, I understand, it is possible to live in the world without having faith.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Morley, I would agree with you that faith, when used to justify historical claims, does invite scrutiny. The LDS Church should not be immune from that scrutiny. My concern, more or less, isn't with theological disagreement or criticisms of things that you or others might not agree with, but with the tone and framing that sometimes treats believers as somehow intellectually defective in some respect. To me, that seems to come across loud and clear. And that's not critique, it's condescension. This board, in my opinion, often drips with it.

For many, including myself, faith in the Restoration isn’t about having to prove the Jaredites lived in ancient America. It’s about living a life shaped by values, rituals, and relationships that make sense within a particular worldview. As I've said before, I'm looking at the bigger picture, the 'macro', rather than focusing on individual 'micro' elements that are either inexplicable/unknown in the here and now...possibly because of a lack of information.

Faith has to enter into the picture somewhere. Where is the faith without the tension? Of course, I understand, it is possible to live in the world without having faith.

I think that the condescension you're picking up on is just a reflection of that same attitude that you're handing out. When others point it out to you, you revert to your "you're making a mountain out of a molehill" routine, and continue in your ways.


On to your other point: What does your faith get you that I, presumedly without said faith, am missing out on?

Or in malkie's words:

And my suggestion is that people should "leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture" when they can get along perfectly well without them. You could too!

How is your life better than his? I'm asking sincerely.

[Limnor]

I have the same question.

If this:

It’s about living a life shaped by values, rituals, and relationships that make sense within a particular worldview.

… is the goal - what is the difference between you and anyone else? Is there an advantage to your worldview that is better than anyone else’s, according to your own criteria?

Because, frankly, most people live their lives according to their own worldviews, and many of them are content to do so.

[MG 2.0]

Morley, I would agree with you that faith, when used to justify historical claims, does invite scrutiny. The LDS Church should not be immune from that scrutiny. My concern, more or less, isn't with theological disagreement or criticisms of things that you or others might not agree with, but with the tone and framing that sometimes treats believers as somehow intellectually defective in some respect. To me, that seems to come across loud and clear. And that's not critique, it's condescension. This board, in my opinion, often drips with it.

For many, including myself, faith in the Restoration isn’t about having to prove the Jaredites lived in ancient America. It’s about living a life shaped by values, rituals, and relationships that make sense within a particular worldview. As I've said before, I'm looking at the bigger picture, the 'macro', rather than focusing on individual 'micro' elements that are either inexplicable/unknown in the here and now...possibly because of a lack of information.

Faith has to enter into the picture somewhere. Where is the faith without the tension? Of course, I understand, it is possible to live in the world without having faith.

I think that the condescension you're picking up on is just a reflection of that same attitude that you're handing out. When others point it out to you, you revert to your "you're making a mountain out of a molehill" routine, and continue in your ways.


On to your other point: What does your faith get you that I, presumedly without said faith, am missing out on?

Or in malkie's words:

And my suggestion is that people should "leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture" when they can get along perfectly well without them. You could too!

How is your life better than his? I'm asking sincerely.

At times when I say that certain posters create a mountain out of a molehill, I truly believe that. I don't believe I'm being condescending when I'm doing so.

You end your post by asking a question. I think that it would actually be interesting to ask malkie that question if he is willing to answer it. You probably already know essentially what I would say.

Malkie?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

I think that the condescension you're picking up on is just a reflection of that same attitude that you're handing out. When others point it out to you, you revert to your "you're making a mountain out of a molehill" routine, and continue in your ways.


On to your other point: What does your faith get you that I, presumedly without said faith, am missing out on?

Or in malkie's words:



How is your life better than his? I'm asking sincerely.

At times when I say that certain posters create a mountain out of a molehill, I truly believe that. I don't believe I'm being condescending when I'm doing so.

You end your post by asking a question. I think that it would actually be interesting to ask malkie that question if he is willing to answer it. You probably already know essentially what I would say.

Malkie?

Regards,
MG

I know you don’t see the condescension in your replies, but it’s there. Folks remark on it all the time and you brush it off.

To the “better life” question, I really have no idea what you’d say. Just spell it out.

I’ve been on this board a middling amount of time. I know somewhat of a few of the lives of some of the participants here—including RL identities of a few of them. How has (or does) your faith give you a better life than Sock Puppet’s, Everybody Wang Chung’s, Chap’s, or Doc’s? I think Gad lives well; I imagine drumdude does, too. As far as I know, none really shares your faith. How do you imagine your life is better than theirs or mine?

Why faith? What’s it getting you?



Edit: I guess I’m asking, is there anything beyond ‘testimony’ there? You feel it must be better, so, umm, it is better?

[Morley]

Faith has to enter into the picture somewhere. Where is the faith without the tension? Of course, I understand, it is possible to live in the world without having faith.

Why does faith have to enter the picture somewhere?

[MG 2.0]

At times when I say that certain posters create a mountain out of a molehill, I truly believe that. I don't believe I'm being condescending when I'm doing so.

You end your post by asking a question. I think that it would actually be interesting to ask malkie that question if he is willing to answer it. You probably already know essentially what I would say.

Malkie?

Regards,
MG

I know you don’t see the condescension in your replies, but it’s there. Folks remark on it all the time and you brush it off.

To the “better life” question, I really have no idea what you’d say. Just spell it out.

I’ve been on this board a middling amount of time. I know somewhat of a few of the lives of some of the participants here. How has (or does) your faith give you a better life than Sock Puppet’s, Everybody Wang Chung’s, Chap’s, or Doc’s? I think Gad lives well; I imagine drumdude does, too. As far as I know, none really shares your faith. How do you imagine your life is better than theirs or mine?

Why faith? What’s it getting you?

I don't claim that my life is "better" than yours or anyone else's. It might be more appropriate to say that faith gives those that believe a framework that holds together meaning, mystery, purpose, and moral aspirations which result in works/action/behavior. Not to say that those that do not live within a religious framework or have this foundation are not able to have purposeful lives full of meaning and high aspirations. Some do and some don't. It all depends on choices, right? The Gospel of Jesus Christ provides meaning beyond the here and now. I hope in the hereafter and eternal progression and being a coinheritor to all that God has to give.

I have a long way to go with a lot of repentance between here and there.

This framework I've mentioned isn't just a set of beliefs, it's a rhythm of living. The rituals, the relationships, the stories (scriptures and such), they help orient and provide structure to living. A sense of solidarity/foundation/security. Sure, that sounds like 'opium for the masses' in a sense...but on the other hand, one might consider that God would want His children to have this security/foundation in knowing the WAY to travel the path successfully and with the greatest potential for happiness.

As humans we all have one thing in common. Uncertainty. Oh, and death and taxes if we live in a developed nation. The Gospel does provide that certainty...attached to the element of faith and hope.

So... better? Not necessarily. Different? Yes. And if you think your life is "better" without the church, who am I to tell you otherwise?

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

I know you don’t see the condescension in your replies, but it’s there. Folks remark on it all the time and you brush it off.

To the “better life” question, I really have no idea what you’d say. Just spell it out.

I’ve been on this board a middling amount of time. I know somewhat of a few of the lives of some of the participants here. How has (or does) your faith give you a better life than Sock Puppet’s, Everybody Wang Chung’s, Chap’s, or Doc’s? I think Gad lives well; I imagine drumdude does, too. As far as I know, none really shares your faith. How do you imagine your life is better than theirs or mine?

Why faith? What’s it getting you?

I don't claim that my life is "better" than yours or anyone else's. It might be more appropriate to say that faith gives those that believe a framework that holds together meaning, mystery, purpose, and moral aspirations which result in works/action/behavior. Not to say that those that do not live within a religious framework or have this foundation are not able to have purposeful lives full of meaning and high aspirations. Some do and some don't. It all depends on choices, right? The Gospel of Jesus Christ provides meaning beyond the here and now. I hope in the hereafter and eternal progression and being a coinheritor to all that God has to give.

I have a long way to go with a lot of repentance between here and there.

This framework I've mentioned isn't just a set of beliefs, it's a rhythm of living. The rituals, the relationships, the stories (scriptures and such), they help orient and provide structure to living. A sense of solidarity/foundation/security. Sure, that sounds like 'opium for the masses' in a sense...but on the other hand, one might consider that God would want His children to have this security/foundation in knowing the WAY to travel the path successfully and with the greatest potential for happiness.

As humans we all have one thing in common. Uncertainty. Oh, and death and taxes if we live in a developed nation. The Gospel does provide that certainty...attached to the element of faith and hope.

So... better? Not necessarily. Different? Yes. And if you think your life is "better" without the church, who am I to tell you otherwise?

Regards,
MG

So, nothing.


Was it PerplexityAI this time, or are you dipping your bucket in other wells?

[MG 2.0]

I don't claim that my life is "better" than yours or anyone else's. It might be more appropriate to say that faith gives those that believe a framework that holds together meaning, mystery, purpose, and moral aspirations which result in works/action/behavior. Not to say that those that do not live within a religious framework or have this foundation are not able to have purposeful lives full of meaning and high aspirations. Some do and some don't. It all depends on choices, right? The Gospel of Jesus Christ provides meaning beyond the here and now. I hope in the hereafter and eternal progression and being a coinheritor to all that God has to give.

I have a long way to go with a lot of repentance between here and there.

This framework I've mentioned isn't just a set of beliefs, it's a rhythm of living. The rituals, the relationships, the stories (scriptures and such), they help orient and provide structure to living. A sense of solidarity/foundation/security. Sure, that sounds like 'opium for the masses' in a sense...but on the other hand, one might consider that God would want His children to have this security/foundation in knowing the WAY to travel the path successfully and with the greatest potential for happiness.

As humans we all have one thing in common. Uncertainty. Oh, and death and taxes if we live in a developed nation. The Gospel does provide that certainty...attached to the element of faith and hope.

So... better? Not necessarily. Different? Yes. And if you think your life is "better" without the church, who am I to tell you otherwise?

Regards,
MG

So, nothing.

That's a rather clean punchline. The thing is, "nothing" only holds if the value of a worldview is measured only by what is empirically distinct or externally demonstrable. For example, the "rhythm of living" I mentioned is not "nothing" It's just not the kind of 'something' that fits into your conceptual framework of what is or isn't important/meaningful.

Scaffolding/framework of meaning DOES matter even if it is made from metaphysical timber along with other elements which act as 'evidence'.

If the only acceptable answer to your question of how my life is "better" is a demonstrable advantage, something empirically better, then you’re asking faith to play a game it never claimed to win.

Faith isn’t a trophy, it’s a compass. It points one towards Christ and the path back to Heavenly Father.

Regards,
MG